I will be impressed. However, I would like to know what the biggest difference was between losing the first two and the potential 4 in a row. Was it Chicago not being the same team without Rondo. I know Rondo wasn't a big part of their team this year, so was Chicago playing above their ceiling in games 1 and 2? I remember prime time Rondo being totally different from regular season Rondo. Or was the biggest difference coming from the Celtics perspective. It seems to me, games 1 and 2 had a sense of dread looming over them from the shock of Thomas' sister, that resonated from the Celtics. The team didn't seem to know how to react and play, while still feeling sympathy for Thomas. Since then, it seems like Isaiah has his feel good attitude back and the team is just back to playing basketball. An this is the team we have watched all year and that clawed their way to the #1 seed.
So if the Rondo reason is true, then I'm not liking our chances for the next round. However, if the second reason is true, I would be vey confident in making the Eastern Conference Finals.
Some of it was flat out luck, if you believe in luck. In game 2, for example, the Celtics shot about 40% on open FGA, while the Bulls shot over 60%. They attempted about the same number of these shots (within 2-3). The Bulls made their open shots, the Celtics missed theirs, and that was pretty much the difference in the game. It wasn't anything that one team did or didn't do, aside from being able to make open jump shots, and that's due more to randomness than anything else, as unexciting of an explanation as that is.